Jean Baudrillard, The System of Objects
After reading this article I found myself questioning specific functions within objects that are specifically classified as art, for example the function of a decorative frame could symbolize as an item to furnish a wall, or could be represented as publicity in public space, or even as an artifact in a museum. Or can art be anything?
Within further research, Jean Baudrillard, a sociologist and a philosopher, not an artist, specifically referencing Marxism. The idea that every object has a specific meaning or purpose is quite a scientific/theoretical/marxism conclusion. Within Jean Baudrillards' writings everything can be systematically understood in an analytical manner, but I personally find the world of art quite different. Yes, an object can be examined or in other words "worked out" to fit any function, but not everything needs to be functionally theorized. Turning to Daoism, why cant something just be? Similar to the mind of a children, Daoism is raw form of surrealism, tapping into creation. I personally envy the mind of a child, to create and build without rules, regulation, and expectations is a beautiful thing.
“The greatest illusion of this world, is the illusion of separation. Things you think are separate and different are actually one in the same.”-Avatar cartoon
ReplyDeleteWhy should we waste our time debating if something is or it isn't? Like you said, "why cant something just be?"
I find myself thinking the same question, "can art be anything?"
ReplyDeleteI'm taking the History of Pacific Art right now and much of the things that we see from these area's are made to honor ancestor's or commemorate ones death, to hunt, to celebrate, but they are not made as "ART". That is not their intended function. Yet they are so beautiful and foreign to the rest of the world that we put them in art museums and marvel at them.
http://cdn2.brooklynmuseum.org/images/opencollection/objects/size2/59.63_SL1.jpg
This war shield for example is made to protect someone from battle, yet it has such detail and care taken into making it, that it appears to us as a form of art.
I find it quite humorous when artist start leading back, or referencing their childhood. whether it be through children or their own, or referencing childhood ideas and creations. In the modern art world everything has to have a meaning or consensus, it can just be, yet i find modern artist referencing this childhood mentality more and more. And this mentality is very much just raw creation, it has no meaning or plan, its just art. Leaving behind the rules and regulations of university art, artist are now looking for that form of raw art, highly similar to the mind of a child.
Delete